Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
On Figure 1: The identification of the view as “FIG. 1” was placed inside the drawing instead of below as in the rest of the figures.
The Figure includes a part identified with a numeral 16, which the Examiner considers should be 12, corresponding to an autonomous vehicle 12.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Examiner found in at least 5 instances references to a “box delivery station 22” that the Examiner considers should be --box delivery station 20--.
Also at least 3 instances of references to a “product delivery station 24” that the Examiner considers should be --product delivery station 22--.
And at least scanning station 24 was referred several times as “quality scanning station 24” and “box scanning station 24”. The same name for the component should be used along the whole specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Claim is listed as dependent of Claim 1, but mentions the “autonomous mobile robot” just disclosed on Claim 2. The Examiner is considering it a typo and will consider it dependent of Claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim reads:
“the system comprising: two or more end-of-line box processing stations each configured to perform one or more end-of-line box processing operations”.
Later reading:
“the end-of-line box processing stations including a supply of boxes, a product delivery station where objects to be shipped are placed in a box, and a sensor for detecting characteristics of the box and the objects in the box”
It is unclear if the “supply of boxes”, the “product delivery station” and the “sensor” are to be considered the claimed processing stations as seems to be indicated in the specification or just elements that have to be included in the claimed “two or more end-of-line box processing stations”. For Prosecution it will be considered that they are elements of the stations.
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim reads “wherein the at least one of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations includes a first end-of-line box processing station and a second end-of-line box processing station disposed remote from the first end-of-line box processing station”. The claim is confusing since the “end-of-line box processing stations” themselves include “end-of-line box processing stations”. The Examiner is considering that --at least one of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations includes a first box processing station and a second box processing station disposed remote from the first box processing station- -.
Regarding Claim 11 to 15 and 17 to 20:
The claims are unclear because Claim 11 discloses an “end-of-line box processing method” and “end-of-line box processing stations”, but never disclose a box. A container is disclosed and objects are disclosed to be placed in the container. The rest of the claims are dependent of claim 11 and mention a box instead of a container.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabrielsen (US 2008/0092488) in view of Mondini (US 2024/0051695).
Regarding Claims 1 to 3:
Gabrielsen discloses a packaging system for end-of-line box processing (Figure 3, system 10),
the system comprising: two or more end-of-line box processing stations each configured to perform one or more end-of-line box processing operations (Figure 3, loading stations 12, dunnage dispensing stations 14 and container closing station 102 are some of the stations),
the end-of-line box processing stations including a supply of boxes, a product delivery station where objects to be shipped are placed in a box, and a sensor for detecting characteristics of the box and the objects in the box (Figure 3, loading station 12 includes a container erector 32 for containers 20 from flat blanks 34, and a product delivery station where articles 16 to be shipped are placed in containers 20, that will be considered the boxes, volume scanner 72 of void determination device 70 will be considered the sensor and, Paragraph 0062, a separate sensor can be provided to measure the length of the container),
a conveyor configured to transport the box from the product delivery station to selected ones of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations (Figures 2 and 3, transport network 24 will be considered the conveyor); and a controller in operable communication with the sensor and the conveyor (Figure 3, controller 26), the controller configured to, based, at least in part, on information from the sensor, selectively direct the conveyor to transport the box from the product delivery station to other selected ones of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations (Paragraph 0113 controller 26 determines whether the loaded container 20 is suitable for automatic dunnage insertion as a function of the data obtained at intermediate station 22a. If the loaded container 20 is not suitable for automatic dunnage insertion, for example, if the contents of the container 20 are above the top of the container 20, the container 20 is moved to diverter line 68aa), the sensing and the insertion of dunnage are made while the box is on the conveyor.
Gabrielsen does not disclose the conveyor being an autonomous vehicle.
Mondini teaches a planar motor conveyor comprising a plurality of magnetic shuttles (Figure 5, planar motor conveyor 3, magnetic shuttles 4) the magnetic shuttles, are autonomous vehicles, moving independently but in a coordinated way and short of any additional limitation can be considered autonomous mobile robots, transport a container to receive objects to be shipped (Figure 5, products 1 on supports 2) from a product delivery station to a plurality of processing stations (Figure 5, paragraph 0134, from unloading station 16 to outfeed station 22 or ejection station 30, third electronic device 29 inspects the product 1 and the support 2 loaded onto each magnetic shuttle 4 and can be considered a sensing station, or if the third electronic device 29 detects an incomplete load back to the outfeed station) as a way to place individual delicate products in containers to avoid damage by the use of manipulators and the individual shuttles can be individually reoriented to receive a product on a container which allows precise positioning even of products with irregular shape or which do not have dimensional stability; allowing regular and repeatable positioning even of products which are fed in an irregular way.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Gabrielsen the teachings of Mondini and replace the transport network for a planar conveyor with magnetic shuttles that allow for individual control for each box to be individually reoriented to receive a product which allows precise positioning even of products with irregular shape or which do not have dimensional stability; allowing regular and repeatable positioning even of products which are fed in an irregular way without the need of robotic or human manipulation; while at the same time allowing to perform the end-of-line box processing operations while the box is onboard the autonomous mobile robot.
Regarding Claim 4:
Gabrielsen discloses the sensor is configured to detect at least one characteristic of the box, including at least one of a height dimension, a width dimension, and a depth dimension (Paragraph 0057, 0062, height sensor 82 for providing an output representative of a height of a container 20, a width sensor 84 for providing an output representative of a width of the container 20, a separate sensor can be provided to measure the length of the container).
Regarding Claim 5:
Gabrielsen discloses wherein the at least one detected characteristic includes a nonconformant indicator of the box (Paragraph 0076, the void determination station 70 also can include one or more sensors used to determine whether the container is suitable for receipt of dunnage, i.e., whether a non-conforming fault condition exists).
Regarding Claim 6:
The modified invention of Gabrielsen discloses wherein the directing step includes instructions to bypass at least one end-of-line box processing station (Paragraphs 0076 to 0078, the void determination station 70 also can include one or more sensors used to determine whether the container is suitable for receipt of dunnage, i.e., whether a non-conforming fault condition exist; upon detecting one of these or other fault conditions where a container falls outside acceptable operating criteria, the controller 26 can automatically route the container for special processing by an operator; the controller 24, can also instruct the dispensing stations 14 to allow the container to pass through the dispensing station 14 without inserting dunnage into the container 20, both conditions can be considering as bypassing a box processing station).
As already discussed for Claim 1, Gabrielsen was modified by the teachings of Mondini to replace the conveyor for a planar motor conveyor comprising a plurality of magnetic shuttles that are considered autonomous vehicles to autonomously transport the box.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Gabrielsen the teachings of Mondini and have the controller configured to direct the direct the autonomous vehicle to autonomously transport the box along a route that bypasses at least one of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations.
Regarding Claim 7:
Gabrielsen discloses that at least one of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations is automated (Paragraph 0048, 0063, loading station 12 automatically converts a box blank into a box, approximate void volume would on average be accurate enough to allow automatic filling of the void from the dunnage dispensing equipment).
Regarding Claim 8:
Gabrielsen discloses that the at least one of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations includes a first end-of-line box processing station and a second end-of-line box processing station disposed remote from the first end-of-line box processing station so that the automated vehicle can be directed to a selected one of the first end-of-line box processing station and the second end-of-line box processing station but not the other one of the first end-of-line box processing station and the second end-of-line box processing station (Figure 2, dunnage dispenser 52, one of the end-of-line box processing stations, includes dunnage dispensing stations 14a, 14b, 14c, and 14, that are considered first and second end-of-line box processing stations and the boxes are directed by the controller 26 to a selected one of them).
Regarding Claim 9:
Gabrielsen discloses that the first end-of-line box processing station and the second end-of-line box processing station perform a same end-of-line box processing operation (Figure 2, if dispensing stations 14a, 14b are considered first and second end-of-line box processing stations they both perform the same automated dunnage dispensing).
Regarding Claim 10:
Gabrielsen discloses that the first end-of-line box processing station and the second end-of-line box processing station perform a different end-of-line box processing operation (Figure 2, on dunnage dispenser 52 if dispensing stations 14a and 14d are considered first and second end-of-line box processing stations they both perform different operations, 14a performs automated dunnage dispensing, while 14d is a diversion station where the non-conforming condition can be resolved. dunnage can be placed in the container at the diversion station 14d or the container be rerouted outside the transport network).
Regarding Claims 11 to 13:
Gabrielsen discloses an end-of-line box processing method, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a packaging system having two or more end-of-line box processing stations (Figure 3, system 10) and a conveying system configured to move a container between selected ones of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations, the end-of-line box processing stations including a product delivery station where objects to be shipped are placed in the container for shipment (Figures 2 and 3, transport network 24 will be considered the conveying system, loading station 12 will be considered a delivery station where products 16 are placed on container 20);
loading a container on the conveying system to transport the container to selective ones of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations (Figure 3 shows containers 20 on transport network 24 towards dunnage dispensing stations 14 and container closing station 102);
after the objects to be shipped are placed in the container, scanning the container to detect characteristics of the container and the objects in the container (Figure 3, paragraph 0050, container 20 are passed by device 70); and directing the automated vehicle to transport the container on a route from the product delivery station to selective ones of the two or more end-of-line box processing stations based, at least in part, on the detected characteristic information (Paragraph 0113 controller 26 determines whether the loaded container 20 is suitable for automatic dunnage insertion as a function of the data obtained at intermediate station 22a. If the loaded container 20 is not suitable for automatic dunnage insertion, for example, if the contents of the container 20 are above the top of the container 20, the container 20 is moved to diverter line 68aa).
Gabrielsen does not disclose the packaging system having a conveying system with one or more autonomous vehicles or loading a container on an automated vehicle.
Mondini teaches a planar motor conveyor comprising a plurality of magnetic shuttles (Figure 5, planar motor conveyor 3, magnetic shuttles 4) the magnetic shuttles, are autonomous vehicles, moving independently but in a coordinated way and short of any additional limitation can be considered autonomous mobile robots, transport a container to receive objects to be shipped (Figure 5, products 1 on supports 2) from a product delivery station to a plurality of processing stations (Figure 5, paragraph 0134, from unloading station 16 to outfeed station 22 or ejection station 30, third electronic device 29 inspects the product 1 and the support 2 loaded onto each magnetic shuttle 4 and can be considered a sensing station, or if the third electronic device 29 detects an incomplete load back to the outfeed station) as a way to place individual delicate products in containers to avoid damage by the use of manipulators and the individual shuttles can be individually reoriented to receive a product on a container which allows precise positioning even of products with irregular shape or which do not have dimensional stability; allowing regular and repeatable positioning even of products which are fed in an irregular way.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Gabrielsen the teachings of Mondini and replace the transport network for a planar conveyor with magnetic shuttles that allow for individual control for each box to be individually reoriented to receive a product which allows precise positioning even of products with irregular shape or which do not have dimensional stability; allowing regular and repeatable positioning even of products which are fed in an irregular way without the need of robotic or human manipulation; while at the same time allowing to perform the end-of-line box processing operations while the box is onboard the autonomous mobile robot.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15:
Gabrielsen discloses detecting at least one characteristic of the box and updating the route based, at least in part, on the detected characteristic (Paragraphs 0076 and 0077, the void determination station 70 also can include one or more sensors used to determine whether the container is suitable for receipt of dunnage, i.e., whether a non-conforming fault condition exist; upon detecting one of these or other fault conditions where a container falls outside acceptable operating criteria, the controller 26 can automatically route the container to a separate conveyor for special processing by an operator).
Regarding Claim 16:
Gabrielsen discloses wherein the directing step includes instructions to bypass at least one end-of-line box processing station (Paragraphs 0076 to 0078, the void determination station 70 also can include one or more sensors used to determine whether the container is suitable for receipt of dunnage, i.e., whether a non-conforming fault condition exist; upon detecting one of these or other fault conditions where a container falls outside acceptable operating criteria, the controller 26 can automatically route the container to a separate conveyor for special processing by an operator; the controller 24, can also instruct the dispensing stations 14 to allow the container to pass through the dispensing station 14 without inserting dunnage into the container 20, both conditions can be considering as bypassing a box processing station).
Regarding Claim 17:
The modified invention of Gabrielsen discloses the loading step includes erecting a box and placing the box on the conveying system.
As already discussed for Claim 11, Gabrielsen was modified by the teachings of Mondini to replace the conveying system for a planar motor conveyor comprising a plurality of magnetic shuttles that are considered autonomous vehicles to autonomously transport the box.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Gabrielsen the teachings of Mondini and have the box erected and placed on the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding Claim 18:
Gabrielsen discloses that the scanning step includes detecting one or more of a height dimension of the box, a width dimension of the box, a depth dimension of the box, a height dimension of one or more objects in the box, nonconformant characteristics of the box, and a void volume of the box (Figure 3, void determination device 70, Paragraph 0057, 0062, height sensor 82 for providing an output representative of a height of a container 20, a width sensor 84 for providing an output representative of a width of the container 20, a separate sensor can be provided to measure the length of the container).
Regarding Claim 19:
Gabrielsen discloses that the scanning step is repeated after the box is transported to at least one end-of-line box processing station (Paragraph 0049, sensors can be used to determine when a container has left a zone of the packaging system).
Regarding Claim 20:
Gabrielsen discloses a step of transporting the box to multiple end-of-line box processing stations (Figure 3 shows a package 20 being transported towards dunnage dispensing stations 14 and container closing station 102).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular a proper rejection of Claim 11 can be made with only Mondini (US 2024/0051695), Carlson (US 2011/0016833) and Cheich (US 2015/0210418) teach relevant packaging systems, while Nanda (US 2019/0025852) and Hance (US 9827683) teach automated vehicles transporting boxes on packaging stations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731